D
dies-l
Guest
Less than complete? Jesus defined it as "where two or three are gathered in my name".
I don't think that Jesus ever mentioned "the church". He certainly didn't in the verse you are talking about. He said that he would be with them, but he didn't call it a "church".
Nobody ever said there had to be more, or that one of the two had to be a priest or ruler of some kind.
And, neither did I.
In a community where there are more than two or three believers, Paul did set up a plurality of elders (spiritually mature) to serve as model believers and guard against false teachings.
So, he set up an organizational structure. My point exactly.
The "double honor" they were to receive was in respect and the need for more than flippant charges brought against them if they are suspected of wrongdoing. But there is another side to that coin: such elders, if found to be sinning, were to be publicly rebuked as a warning to others. That is, where there is double honor, there is also double shame. If, as some wish, we take it to refer to a salary, then where is the stipulation as to amount, and who gets "single honor"?
The context specifically references "wages" and the phrase "do not muzzle the ox while he is treading grain" refers to paying those who labor for you.
Both expressions refer directly to providing for the pastor and his family. Paul also says, "the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel". Now, there is nothing in Scripture that tells us the amount. But, I think that general principles of leadership spelled out in Scripture provide plenty of guidance.
Acts never shows organization beyond the spiritually mature guiding the less mature. Not one person is ever identified as a "pastor". There is not one guideline or rule about who gets what salary. There is no chain of command in the Body of Christ.
Who said anything about "chain of command"? I said that there is evidence throughout the NT of an organized church structure.
The offering was not for him! Though there were a few instances where people sent him aid, he never demanded it and in fact explicitly refused to take it from those who were in more need than he, or who were his spiritual "children". I defy you to show chapter and verse where any offering went to church leaders just because they were church leaders. Chapter and verse.
And, I defy you to show me where I ever said that "offerings should go to church leaders just because they are church leaders." I think that if a church community wants to provide for its pastor, because they want to have a pastor who is available to serve it on a full-time basis, then they are free to do that. If you do not want to be part of a church with a full time paid pastor, then you are free to find a church that doesn't pay its pastor.
Why are you still saying this after it's been pointed out that Paul never sets up "pastors" as office holders that are to be paid salaries, and after that whole section about "equality" as the purpose of all our giving? It's about NEEDS for survival, not a nice middle-class western lifestyle.
It has been pointed out that Paul clearly does provide for the compensation of those charged with leading the church, and those people are called in modern language "pastors".
"Tithing" is legalism; "giving" is grace.
A tithe is nothing more than a tenth. It can be a tenth of one's crops. It can be a tenth of one's income. It can be a tenth of the spoils of war. The word tithe simply means tenth. If I choose to give 10% of my [income, savings, crops, etc.] to some other person or group, then I have giving a tithe. There is nothing inherently legalistic about this. If I do it because I believe I must, then that is legalism.
It is equally legalistic to insist that pastors must not be paid, because you can't find a verse that specifically demands that they be paid.
And this differs from anything I've said, how exactly?
It doesn't. You expressed offense over something I said, and I was trying to explain what I mean and why I didn't mean for it to be offensive.
There is not even a hint of "ought" for tithing. There is only "give willingly and not under compulsion",
I would generally agree with this, except that I would say that the principles of giving throughout the Bible hint toward some form of regular and substantial giving as a sound spiritual practice.
and for the purpose of helping those who are in need of food and shelter, so that if the tables ever turn then the giving can go the other way.
Giving to those who are in need is certainly commended in Scripture. However, nothing in Scripture indicates that this is to be the only purpose for giving. That much is your own added commentary, and I don't see that it stands up to the scrutiny of Scripture.
If we are saved and practicing the love of God, there is no need to be lectured on any sort of charitable giving.
If we are saved and practicing the love of God, we are generally not criticizing those who choose to give generously to their local church and we are not complaining about pastors receiving a fair wage for the work they do.
Thank you for your judgmental opinion. And I am not lying about my own experiences, which many, many others share.
I never accused you of lying. I accused you of having an incorrect opinion, and you have been accusing me of the same.
You are still mixing "tithing" and "giving" and trying to turn my argument into something it never was. I won't play this anymore, we are not communicating.
I am not doing any such thing. I have explained that tithing is a loaded word that really only means "giving of one tenth." But, I am trying to understand what you are objecting to: the idea of tithing as a legal obligation, or the idea of giving a tenth of one's income because one wants to. You seem to be saying that there is no reason that believers should give any amount to any church institution, except perhaps for the direct purpose of providing for the poor. I suspect that you would oppose a voluntary giving campaign for a building program or to repair the parsonage or to enhance the children's ministry. And, if that is your position, I would disagree with you, whether we use the word "tithe" or the word "give."
Upvote
0
